Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
KKO 4247/1997 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismissed claim that lease was installment sale with retention of title against insolvent buyer's creditors.

Numero d'incarto KKO 4247/1997
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim that a contract labeled a lease was substantively an installment sale with a retention of title clause. The plaintiff argued the agreement contained such a clause to secure payment, while the defendant contended it was a genuine lease. The court determined the contract lacked the essential characteristics of an installment sale, specifically the transfer of ownership upon full payment, and thus the retention of title clause was invalid against the buyer's creditors.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Act on the Security of Sales Contracts; Act on the Security of Sales Contracts: A contract labeled a lease but lacking the transfer of ownership upon full payment does not constitute an installment sale, and a retention of title clause in such an agreement is ineffective against the buyer's creditors and successors.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
lease contract installment sale retention of title insolvency creditor rights substance over form security interest mancata attuazione degli accordi illeciti

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Act on the Security of Sales Contracts
Generato dall'IA

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Yhtiöt A ja B olivat tehneet vuokrasopimukseksi otsikoidun sopimuksen, jolla A oli hankkinut B:ltä lämpökeskuksen liitettäväksi rakentamaansa teollisuushalliin. Kysymys siitä, oliko sopimus tosiasiallisesti osamaksukauppa, sisältyikö siihen omistuksenpidätysehto, ja jos, niin saattoiko B vedota omistuksenpidätysehtoon A:n konkurssivelkojia ja seuraajia vastaan.